Why are the causes of homosexuality such a major issue in the gay marriage debate?

hatrickpatrick

Now that the gay marriage debate is really beginning to ramp up, I've noticed that all over Twitter, Facebook, Boards, Pie, radio and television there are a huge number of debates emerging over the causes of homosexuality. Indeed, "born with it" has long been a mantra of the gay lobby as a way of "justifying" their lifestyle.

Does anyone else have an issue with this? I won't claim to have any scientific insight whatsoever into this subject but I've always been troubled by its prominence in any debate about gay rights or tolerance.
Should the message to rally around not be that homosexuality affects nobody other than willingly consenting parties and that therefore, all other arguments are irrelevant? Let's imagine for a second that science one day does prove that it's brought on by choice or by societal influence when somebody is growing up, or whatever. Currently, this would invalidate a huge amount of pro tolerance propaganda and activism, which is based around the idea that it's an inherent trait. But isn't that missing the point entirely? I would have thought that the causes of it were entirely irrelevant, with the only relevant factor being that something cannot be considered "wrong" unless someone is directly and negatively impacted by it against their will. Which is a category that no consensual sexual lifestyle or choice can ever fall under.

I guess I just find it a little odd to see people "justifying" homosexuality on one ground or another, when I would have thought the wider argument would be "what I do is nobody's feckin' business so I dont have to justify myself to anyone".

Thoughts?

K4t

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Indeed, "born with it" has long been a mantra of the gay lobby as a way of "justifying" their lifestyle.

What lifestyle would that be?

Icepick

"hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I guess I just find it a little odd to see people "justifying" homosexuality on one ground or another, when I would have thought the wider argument would be "what I do is nobody's feckin' business so I dont have to justify myself to anyone".

Thoughts?

Sure but your tactic won't be as persuasive unfortunately.

Timberrrrrrrr

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Now that the gay marriage debate is really beginning to ramp up, I've noticed that all over Twitter, Facebook, Boards, Pie, radio and television there are a huge number of debates emerging over the causes of homosexuality. Indeed, "born with it" has long been a mantra of the gay lobby as a way of "justifying" their lifestyle.

Does anyone else have an issue with this? I won't claim to have any scientific insight whatsoever into this subject but I've always been troubled by its prominence in any debate about gay rights or tolerance.
Should the message to rally around not be that homosexuality affects nobody other than willingly consenting parties and that therefore, all other arguments are irrelevant? Let's imagine for a second that science one day does prove that it's brought on by choice or by societal influence when somebody is growing up, or whatever. Currently, this would invalidate a huge amount of pro tolerance propaganda and activism, which is based around the idea that it's an inherent trait. But isn't that missing the point entirely? I would have thought that the causes of it were entirely irrelevant, with the only relevant factor being that something cannot be considered "wrong" unless someone is directly and negatively impacted by it against their will. Which is a category that no consensual sexual lifestyle or choice can ever fall under.

I guess I just find it a little odd to see people "justifying" homosexuality on one ground or another, when I would have thought the wider argument would be "what I do is nobody's feckin' business so I dont have to justify myself to anyone".

Thoughts?

And in about 20 posts you will be wondering why people are not taking you seriously.

househero

K4t wrote: »

What lifestyle would that be?

I don't know. But I know a professional rugby player. As straight as can be. His brother is gay.

If being gay is environmental, and they were brought up the same... why would you end up with two extremes?

kneemos

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And in about 20 posts you will be wondering why people are not taking you seriously.

He's pointing out the idiocy of it.

AlanS181824

Being gay is not a choice, it's simply something you were born with.

Have you seen all the hardship LGBTQI people go through on a daily basis?

Do you honestly think they chose that?

To Elland Back

I for one need to know what causes it in case I, or my wife or children, catch it

mikom

Why do I love red heads?

AtomicHorror

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Thoughts?

Is that what you call them?

FunLover18

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Being gay is not a choice, it's simply something you were born with.

Have you seen all the hardship LGBTQI people go through on a daily basis?

Do you honestly think they chose that?

I think the OP's point is that it shouldn't matter whether it is a choice or genetics.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I would have thought that the causes of it were entirely irrelevant

AtomicHorror

FunLover18 wrote: »

I think the OP's point is that it shouldn't matter whether it is a choice or genetics.

I think you're being very generous to OP. His agenda is very clear.

FunLover18

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think you're being very generous to OP. His agenda is very clear.

Is that based on their post history or something?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I guess I just find it a little odd to see people "justifying" homosexuality on one ground or another, when I would have thought the wider argument would be "what I do is nobody's feckin' business so I dont have to justify myself to anyone".

This seems pretty clear to me … No one ever has an argument about whether heterosexuality is a choice or genetics. Why should it matter?

What do you think the OP's agenda is?

Ave Sodalis

I think it shouldn't be relevant but many of the people against homosexuality believe that it's something people can switch off and that the only reason they're attracted to the same gender is because they have some disgusting habit, or something along those lines.

AtomicHorror

FunLover18 wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think you're being very generous to OP. His agenda is very clear.

Is that based on their post history or something?

I'll do some highlighting to help you with this. No, it's not based on post history, though I recall the user name, which is typically a bad sign.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Now that the gay marriage debate is really beginning to ramp up, I've noticed that all over Twitter, Facebook, Boards, Pie, radio and television there are a huge number of debates emerging over the causes of homosexuality. Indeed, "born with it" has long been a mantra of the gay lobby as a way of "justifying" their lifestyle.

Does anyone else have an issue with this? I won't claim to have any scientific insight whatsoever into this subject but I've always been troubled by its prominence in any debate about gay rights or tolerance.
Should the message to rally around not be that homosexuality affects nobody other than willingly consenting parties and that therefore, all other arguments are irrelevant? Let's imagine for a second that science one day does prove that it's brought on by choice or by societal influence when somebody is growing up, or whatever. Currently, this would invalidate a huge amount of pro tolerance propaganda and activism, which is based around the idea that it's an inherent trait. But isn't that missing the point entirely? I would have thought that the causes of it were entirely irrelevant, with the only relevant factor being that something cannot be considered "wrong" unless someone is directly and negatively impacted by it against their will. Which is a category that no consensual sexual lifestyle or choice can ever fall under.

I guess I just find it a little odd to see people "justifying" homosexuality on one ground or another, when I would have thought the wider argument would be "what I do is nobody's feckin' business so I dont have to justify myself to anyone".

Thoughts?

FunLover18 wrote: »

What do you think the OP's agenda is?

That he's against some element of the "gay agenda", be it marriage equality, adoption by same sex couples or homosexuality itself. Or perhaps some combination of these.

hatrickpatrick

K4t wrote: »

What lifestyle would that be?

Having, or desiring to have, partners of the same sex…?

Icepick wrote: »

Sure but your tactic won't be as persuasive unfortunately.

Personally, I think it would be far more effective. Perhaps I'm mistaken? I would have thought campaigning from an angle of "how I live is none of your feckin' business" would be the best angle to take, as it would force people to explain why they feel superior enough to have the right to rule someone else's life, instead of giving them the opportunity to get into a pointless and irrelevant debate over whether homosexuality is "natural" or not. As far as I'm concerned it clearly is, but it also doesn't matter. Even if it was proven to be somehow unnatural or acquired, that still wouldn't change the fact that it involves no victims and therefore isn't unethical.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And in about 20 posts you will be wondering why people are not taking you seriously.

Elaborate?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think you're being very generous to OP. His agenda is very clear.

My agenda is and always has been radical social libertarianism whereby nothing which involves no unwilling victims is looked down upon or considered wrong. To that end, I simply find the debate over nature vs nurture vs choice with regard to homosexuality to be a complete red herring, which distracts from the wider issue of getting people to stop judging others just because they're different.

sup_dude wrote: »

I think it shouldn't be relevant but many of the people against homosexuality believe that it's something people can switch off and that the only reason they're attracted to the same gender is because they have some disgusting habit, or something along those lines.

I agree. What I'm arguing here is that (in my view of course) the focus should be on explaining to those people that their views on other people's lives don't count for sh*t and they do not have the right to deny rights to others simply because they believe that their own lifestyles are superior.

So in other words, whether homosexuality is inborn or not is irrelevant - one way or another, it's a personal matter which nobody else has the right to dictate or discriminate against.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That he's against some element of the "gay agenda", be it marriage equality, adoption by same sex couples or homosexuality itself. Or perhaps some combination of these.

I am against absolutely no element of it whatsoever. When the referendum comes around I will be campaigning extensively in favour of it. But I'll personally be avoiding getting involved in any argument over the source or origin of homosexuality because I personally believe that argument sidesteps the adjacent issue of not allowing anyone to impose their belief system on others. I believe that the "we can't help being gay" argument is akin to saying "I accept that being gay is negative, but I can't do anything about it", whereas I believe a clearer argument would be "whether I can choose to be gay or not doesn't matter, it's not a negative thing and not something I should have to justify."

All I'm debating here is the platform from which equality is best campaigned for.

arayess

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Being gay is not a choice, it's simply something you were born with.

Have you seen all the hardship LGBTQI people go through on a daily basis?

Do you honestly think they chose that?

not being born with gay don't make it a choice either.

Personally as I wrote in a thread earlier tonight - I don't believe that people are born with their sexual orientation defined. I believe it is developed and evolves as we age.

But who cares?
The OP is spot on - the gay marriage thing is side tracked by this angle.

Uncle Ruckus

AtomicHorror

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I am against absolutely no element of it whatsoever. When the referendum comes around I will be campaigning extensively in favour of it. But I'll personally be avoiding getting involved in any argument over the source or origin of homosexuality because I personally believe that argument sidesteps the adjacent issue of not allowing anyone to impose their belief system on others. I believe that the "we can't help being gay" argument is akin to saying "I accept that being gay is negative, but I can't do anything about it", whereas I believe a clearer argument would be "whether I can choose to be gay or not doesn't matter, it's not a negative thing and not something I should have to justify."

All I'm debating here is the platform from which equality is best campaigned for.

Sorry, but the language you used in your OP didn't exactly position you as being pro-equality. Particularly your use of the word "propaganda". I seem to recall you making some daft arguments against adoption by same sex couples too.

Completely disagree with the logic of your argument anyway. Pointing out that something lacks an element of choice to it does not imply anything negative about it. The point is mostly made in response to people who claim otherwise and suggest that homosexuals have some moral responsibility to choose to live as heterosexuals.

People who believe homosexuality can be chosen used to baffle me. After all, I couldn't choose to be attracted to my own gender, so how could homosexuals choose to be straight? Then it occurred to me that one kind of person might consider choice to be possible. A repressed homosexual/bisexual might make that sort of argument, because they perceive the existence of a choice that they deny themselves. I'm sure there are some straight-up bigots pushing that line too, but just because it suits their purposes.

bb1234567

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Being gay is not a choice, it's simply something you were born with.

Have you seen all the hardship LGBTQI people go through on a daily basis?

Do you honestly think they chose that?

Ah its not hardship. Bit of an exaggeration, but yeh I would choose to be straight if given the choice, without a doubt.

Sheldons Brain

Mostly people do things because they want, not to piss off other people, so this doesn't make homosexuality much different. It is consensual, so the government should not prohibit it. But in the present circumstances the issue is whether it homosexuals relationships should have all of the benefits of marriage, which is a form of legal privilege long established in society.The government should not legally privilege homosexuality any more than it should legally privilege psychopaths, who are also born that way.

hatrickpatrick

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Sorry, but the language you used in your OP didn't exactly position you as being pro-equality. Particularly your use of the word "propaganda".

Apologize. I'm part of a wide variety of activist groups and the word "propaganda" is widely used as a fun way to refer to the mundane task of printing off leaflets etc. Realize now it must look odd to someone who doesn't know the in-joke.

I seem to recall you making some daft arguments against adoption by same sex couples too.

I stand by the argument that until homosexuality is so normalized within society that kids wouldn't get bullied over having two dads or two mums, it's not something we should rush into. Currently among kids, calling someone's parents gay is used as a form of nasty insult, and I can only imagine how much worse someone would have it if their peers found out that their parents genuinely were gay.

Is that a reason to deny gay people adoption rights? No. Is it possibly a reason to introduce those rights slowly and hand-in-hand with a properly inclusive program of sex ed from an extremely early age which pre-empts heterosexuality being seen as an ideal? Yes. And I think we should have a major public discussion about how best to approach that before we rush into something which could have horrible consequences for some kids' social lives. I was bullied in school for a time. It has a lasting impact.

Surely this doesn't make me anti-gay?

Completely disagree with the logic of your argument anyway. Pointing out that something lacks an element of choice to it does not imply anything negative about it. The point is mostly made in response to people who claim otherwise and suggest that homosexuals have some moral responsibility to choose to live as heterosexuals.

My argument here is basically that instead of saying "well I couldn't live as a hetero even if I wanted to", the argument should be "no, I don't have any moral responsibility to do anything you want me to do. F*ck off and mind your own business". That's all I'm saying.

Why do people gravitate so readily towards "natural remedies"? "cures" that have not been shown to do anything at all - but people like them.

Why when I was in another country and was confronted with about 10 different choices of a liter of milk did I choose the "Alpine Fresh" label - before my brain kicked in in the queue and asked myself why I picked that one over all the others. And I realized the label brought to mind cows feeding on wind chilled fresh grass on a hillside untouched by human hands.

We seem to have it ingrained in our minds that "natural" is somehow "good". Even those of us who normally think ourselves immune to that catch ourselves picking up one milk over another.

The reason the "causes" of homosexuality come up in the debate is for that very reason. The Anti Homosexual Lobby want to instill the "unnatural" idea in your head. Because their hope is that this Meme that Natural is good and unnatural is bad will attach itself to that concept and do the rest of their work for them. They have NO anti homosexual arguments. Literally none. So they rely on inbuilt biases like this to do their work for them.

And a lot of the time it works. Out of a multi choice of milk - I found myself reaching for the one that screamed "natural" at me. And I imagine the anti gay meme these people propagate has a somewhat similar effect on the minds of those who do not unpack the issue deeply enough.

c_man

mikom wrote: »

Why do I love red heads?

Cos they're sexy as fuk and demons in the sack :cool:

hatrickpatrick

The word "apologize" in my last post was of course meant to be "apologies"

Annasopra

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The government should not legally privilege homosexuality any more than it should legally privilege psychopaths, who are also born that way.

It's quite hilarious that you choose to liken gay people to psychopaths

Baby Jane

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It's quite hilarious that you choose to liken gay people to psychopaths

And psychopathy tends to result in harming other people. To compare homosexuality, which doesn't harm other people, to psychopathy, is pretty warped I think.

Dog of Tears

Personally I don't really give a **** as to the reasons why people are gay.

Genetics or choice, I don't see the difference.

Sexuality is a personal issue and should play no part in societal laws.

Clankatron

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My argument here is basically that instead of saying "well I couldn't live as a hetero even if I wanted to", the argument should be "no, I don't have any moral responsibility to do anything you want me to do. F*ck off and mind your own business". That's all I'm saying.

This was as clear as day to me in your OP. I have no idea how those first few eejits couldn't see that. You're completely right.

Gbear

A surprisingly large number of people are tyrants at heart. And that doesn't just apply to the right wing Catholics who mostly make up the anti-gay-rights lobby in Ireland.

Most debates on personal freedom can't be simply settled by explaining why the thing you're doing is your own business and nobody else's. It just doesn't fly with people.

So instead, those lobbying for gay rights have to put opponents in the position where they're oppressing "victims" of a really difficult accident of biology and thus call into question their basic decency, rather than their main problem, which is that they think their opinions should be inflicted on others.

It's very hard to change someone's values of supporting authoritarianism, so it's a practical solution to instead target an empirical notion such as the unchangeable nature of sexism orientation.
Unfortunately, our understanding of sexual preferences isn't quite robust enough to be able to drag everyone along. There's just enough doubt for people to hide their intolerance behind.

deBop

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Mostly people do things because they want, not to piss off other people, so this doesn't make homosexuality much different. It is consensual, so the government should not prohibit it. But in the present circumstances the issue is whether it homosexuals relationships should have all of the benefits of marriage, which is a form of legal privilege long established in society.The government should not legally privilege homosexuality any more than it should legally privilege psychopaths, who are also born that way.

Heterosexuals shouldn't have privileges in society either, most psychopaths and murderers identify as straight like Hitler, Stalin, etc. Lock them all up I say!